Interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all cases, and compensation for mental agony/harassment should be based on a finding of loss or injury and must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury.

Judgment

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

( 1 ) BEFORE this Court a large number of appeals have been filed by the Haryana Urban development Authority and/or the ghaziabad Development Authority challenging orders of the National Consumer disputes Redressal Commission, granting to complainants, interest at the rate of 18% per annum irrespective of the fact of each case. This Court has, in the case of ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, deprecated this practice. This Court has held that interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all cases irrespective of the facts of the case. This Court has held that the Consumer Forums could grant damages/compensation for mental agony/harassment where it finds misfeasance in public office. This Court has held that such compensation is a recompense for the loss or injury and it necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury. This Court has held that the Forum or the Commission thus had to determine that there was deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office and that it has resulted in loss or injury. This Court has also laid down certain other guidelines which the Forum or the commission has to follow in future cases.

( 2 ) THIS Court is now taking up the cases before it for disposal as per principles set out in earlier judgment. On taking the cases we find that the copies of the claim/petitions made by the respondent/complainant and the evidence, if any, led before the district Forum are not placed in the paper book. This Court has before it the order of the District Forum. The facts are thus taken from that order.

( 3 ) IN this case the respondent was allotted a plot bearing no. 19, sector 12-A, Gurgaon, in the year 1986. The respondent paid all dues. The plot allotted turned out to be under litigation thus complainant was not offered possession. The complainant was then offered alternate plot no. 30-P, sector- 9, Gurgaon, but a much higher price was claimed. Respondent was not willing to pay the higher price and asked for allotment of an alternate plot in original sector at original price. This was not complied with thus respondent filed a complaint.

( 4 ) ON these facts, the District Forum directed that where the appellants are not in a position to give possession of the plot allotted they must give an alternate plot at the original price. We are in full agreement with this view and hold that wherever a body like the appellants is not in a position to deliver possession of the allotted plot, they must offer an alternate plot immediately at the same price. The alternate plot must be in the same Sector or near thereto.

( 5 ) THE District Forum has directed delivery of possession of an alternate plot and awarded interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 15% p. a. from the date of deposit till date possession is given. We are told that possession was given only in 2002.

( 6 ) THE State Forum confirmed the award in the appeal filed by the appellants. The respondent did not go in revision before the national Commission. The appellants filed a revision before the National Commission. The National Commission has increased the rate of interest to 18% p. a.

( 7 ) FOR reasons set out in the judgment in the case Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra), the order of the National Commission cannot be sustained. As stated above, the relevant papers regarding the claim made, the affidavits filed, the evidence submitted before the district Forum are not produced before this court. In this case, the District Forum has ensured that the possession is given at the old rate. Where possession is given at old rate the party has got benefit of escalation in price of land, thus there cannot and should not also be award of interest on the money. However, considering the fact that the allotment was in 1986 and possession given only in 2002, compensation towards mental agony/harassment should have been awarded. Com